Text messages - Seattle Mayor Ed Murray 2016 (Mayor)

Phil Mocek filed this request with the Office of the Mayor of Seattle, WA.
Est. Completion Aug. 10, 2016
Status
Awaiting Appeal

Communications

From: Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to RCW Ch. 42.56 (Public Records Act), I hereby request the following records:

Text messages (i.e., SMS messages) and other mobile-phone-based text communications (e.g., Signal Messenger, WhatsApp, Wire, Wickr, Telegram, iMessage, Facebook Chat, SnapChat, Slack, Glip, Facebook and Twitter "direct messages," etc.), addressed or "CC'd" to Seattle Mayor Ed Murray or any alias of his, sent by the mayor, or sent on behalf of the mayor, in 2016, on personal or work-specific devices operated by or otherwise under the control of Mayor Ed Murray. In the event that the search for responsive records involves a public employee's good-faith search of his or her personal device, please provide a reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavit attesting to the nature and extent of that search.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Phil Mocek

From: Phil Mocek

On 07/15/2016 10:12 AM, Ferreiro, Kimberly wrote:
> The records will not be co-mingled and at this point I don't foresee any issues with sending the responding records to the related email addresses.

Great! Thank you.

> I look forward to working with you.

Likewise.
--
Phil Mocek
https://mocek.org

From: EXECPDR

Dear Mr. Mocek:

This is to advise you that we have responsive records available for you.

You may make an appointment to view the records at no charge, or pick them up on the 7th floor of City Hall (600 4th Ave, Seattle) for $1.00 (on a cd), if you choose this method please note that the receptionist is unable to make change. Alternatively, we can deliver the records to you in electronic format on compact disk by mail. Please provide an address and send $3.50 for the cost of the media and postage to the address below.

City Hall - Office of the Mayor
Attention: Kimberly Ferreiro
PO Box 94749
Seattle, WA 98124

Please let us know how you would like to proceed in order that we may have the records available for you.

We will hold the records for thirty days, if we do not hear from you by May 19, 2017, we will close this request.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Ferreiro, CPRO

[cid:image003.png@01D22DD2.B96F0AD0]

Kimberly Ferreiro, CPRO

Public Disclosure Advisor
Office of the Mayor
T: (206) 684.3252 | Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov<mailto:Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov>

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, which may result in monitoring, archiving, as well as disclosure to third parties upon request.

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find enclosed a check for $3.50 to satisfy the fee associated with the attached public records request.

Thank you.

From: Office of the Mayor

A copy of documents responsive to the request.

From: Office of the Mayor

A copy of documents responsive to the request.

From: EXECPDR

Thank you for the email and your payment. The records were mailed May 5th, 2017.

Please let me know if you do not receive them shortly.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Ferreiro, CPRO

From: requests@muckrock.com [mailto:requests@muckrock.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 2:03 AM
To: EXECPDR <EXECPDR@seattle.gov>
Subject: RE: Public Records Request: Text messages - Seattle Mayor Ed Murray 2016 (Mayor)

May 9, 2017
Office of the Mayor
Mayor's Office
P.O. Box 94749
Seattle, WA 98124-4749

This is a follow up to a previous request:

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On April 24, 2017:

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find enclosed a check for $3.50 to satisfy the fee associated with the attached public records request.

Thank you.

---

On April 12, 2017:
Dear Mr. Mocek:

This is to advise you that we have responsive records available for you.

You may make an appointment to view the records at no charge, or pick them up on the 7th floor of City Hall (600 4th Ave, Seattle) for $1.00 (on a cd), if you choose this method please note that the receptionist is unable to make change. Alternatively, we can deliver the records to you in electronic format on compact disk by mail. Please provide an address and send $3.50 for the cost of the media and postage to the address below.

City Hall - Office of the Mayor
Attention: Kimberly Ferreiro
PO Box 94749
Seattle, WA 98124

Please let us know how you would like to proceed in order that we may have the records available for you.

We will hold the records for thirty days, if we do not hear from you by May 19, 2017, we will close this request.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Ferreiro, CPRO

[cid:image003.png@01D22DD2.B96F0AD0]

Kimberly Ferreiro, CPRO

Public Disclosure Advisor
Office of the Mayor
T: (206) 684.3252 | Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov<mailto:Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov<mailto:Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov%3cmailto:Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov>>

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, which may result in monitoring, archiving, as well as disclosure to third parties upon request.

---

On April 6, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On March 15, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Feb. 28, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Feb. 13, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Jan. 27, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Jan. 12, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Dec. 28, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Dec. 13, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Nov. 28, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Nov. 11, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Oct. 27, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Oct. 12, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Sept. 27, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Sept. 9, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Aug. 25, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Aug. 10, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You had previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to check on the status of my request, and to see if there was a new estimated completion date.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On Aug. 8, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I'm following up on the following Public Records request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. You previously indicated that it would be completed on Aug. 10, 2016. I wanted to let you know that I am still interested in the following documents, and to see if that date was still accurate.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On July 15, 2016:
On 07/15/2016 10:12 AM, Ferreiro, Kimberly wrote:
> The records will not be co-mingled and at this point I don't foresee any issues with sending the responding records to the related email addresses.

Great! Thank you.

> I look forward to working with you.

Likewise.
--
Phil Mocek
https://mocek.org
---

On July 11, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On July 6, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On July 1, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 24, 2016. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

---

On June 24, 2016:
To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to RCW Ch. 42.56 (Public Records Act), I hereby request the following records:

Text messages (i.e., SMS messages) and other mobile-phone-based text communications (e.g., Signal Messenger, WhatsApp, Wire, Wickr, Telegram, iMessage, Facebook Chat, SnapChat, Slack, Glip, Facebook and Twitter "direct messages," etc.), addressed or "CC'd" to Seattle Mayor Ed Murray or any alias of his, sent by the mayor, or sent on behalf of the mayor, in 2016, on personal or work-specific devices operated by or otherwise under the control of Mayor Ed Murray. In the event that the search for responsive records involves a public employee's good-faith search of his or her personal device, please provide a reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavit attesting to the nature and extent of that search.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Phil Mocek

------
Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock
DEPT MR 26417
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
------
[http://email.requests.muckrock.com/o/eJwNzLsOwjAMQNGvIaPlxHUTD1lKsyMmNhRSA1WpIvrg-6nuenSHyNyaMTq0HhnlyBGDIwkI0lrngbquE5v6U4OLfnddtxXmvUxLLROUOpt3DKxWGhX_QKTMQWhon5y9cA5KWMzB5vs4RPLOiTdLTLd0vvTX47lq3raPwqv-_mPMJ-k]

From: Phil Mocek

Dear Ms. Ferreiro,

Since you did not include an affidavit as I requested, could you please specify whether A) Mr. Murray does not have a personal mobile device, or B) someone other than Mr. Murray searched his device for responsive records?

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

From: EXECPDR

Dear Mr. Mocek,

This request was formally closed on July 17, 2017.

Mayor Murray's work cell phone was searched by his executive assistance Robert Paine-Donovan. The City of Seattle has a policy that personal devices are not to be used for City business.

I have attached the search verification form for your review.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Ferreiro

[cid:image003.png@01D22DD2.B96F0AD0]

Kimberly Ferreiro, CPRO

Public Disclosure Advisor
Office of the Mayor
T: (206) 684.3252 | Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov<mailto:Kimberly.ferreiro@seattle.gov>

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, which may result in monitoring, archiving, as well as disclosure to third parties upon request.

From: Phil Mocek

Dear Ms. Ferreiro,

I appeal. Your search for responsive records was explicitly inadequate. More than nine months ago, I requested reasonably-identified records related to Ed Murray's job as a city employee, provided a reasonable time period during which those records may have been created in order to limit the scope of necessary search for the records, and suggested locations to search for such records in case some likely locations--personal mobile devices such as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, for example--would otherwise have been overlooked.

Despite that, during the many months it took for you to provide responsive records, your office apparently neglected to either search personal devices or have the employee search his own device and provide a reasonably-detailed affidavit attesting to the nature and extent of that search as I requested. After I followed up with questions about the apparent fact that Mr. Murray's personal devices were not searched, you cited an un-named and un-dated city policy which would prohibit Mr. Murray from using his personal devices for work purposes, but certainly would not prevent outside parties from contacting him about work-related matters on such devices.

If Mr. Murray is confident that his personal devices did not contain responsive records, then it would have been a simple matter for him to search those devices and provide the requested affidavit in lieu of records on the devices that he believes are not public record. If public agencies refrain from searching personal devices used concurrently with work-issued devices simply because internal policy dictates that staff not use personal devices for public business, then we will have created in such devices a very effective shelter for public business that public staff wish to conceal from the public.

Please be aware of the following, quoted from the ["Public Records Act Court Decisions" section][1] of the website of Municipal Research and Services Center, which shows the courts' resolution of conflict between the public's right to oversight of governmental activities and the privacy rights of pubic employees as it pertains to their personal mobile devices:

> West v. Steve Vermillion City of Puyallup, 196 Wn. App. 627 (11/8/2016) – Vermillion, a city councilmember, maintained a private computer on which he maintained some private matters along with some items that related to his position on the city council. West requested the “communications received or posted” through a personal website and associated email account run by the city councilmember. Vermillion refused to provide the documents found at his home, on his personal computer and on his personal email account, citing his rights of privacy under the state and federal constitutions. West sued and the trial court required Vermillion to provide those documents that were public. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that it was proper to require the production of emails from a personal email account that met the definition of a public record and to require submittal of an affidavit in good faith attesting to the adequacy of the search for the requested records. The court held that the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution do not afford an individual privacy interest in public records contained in the personal email account. In reaching its decision, the court relied on the recent case Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015), which related to records found on a private cellphone. The records, even if they are on a private device, may be subject to disclosure if the person “acts within the scope of his or her employment,” in which case the actions are tantamount to "the actions of the [body] itself." If the records "relate to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function" and are "prepared, owned, used, or retained by an agency," they are potentially public records subject to disclosure. There is no constitutional privacy right to records that are public records. The possible disclosure of public records does not violate the right to association.

[1]: <http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Legal/Open-Government/Public-Records-Act-Court-Decisions.aspx>

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

Files

pages

Close